> Doctors want the best outcomes for themselves. If they’ve found an effective treatment that others are overlooking then they’ll seek to publish

However often the work required to prove something is effective is beyond a capacity of a single Doctor. Also in terms of wanting the best outcome for themselves - sometimes that involves not putting their career at risk by trying unproven treatments on patients ( you are focussing on the outcome when it works, not the more likely outcome and consequence of it not working ).

So sure 'miracle' cures are unlikely to lay undiscovered - but most improvements in medicine are incremental, rather than miraculous.

I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying. But it sounds like the parent said there’s a miracle treatment that the medical community is ignoring for lack of a financial incentive (and they then go on to mention a financial incentive?)

That's a ridiculous reading of my comment. Vitamin C induces cell death in a variety of cancers. That's what I wrote and it's not controversial, it's documented in dozens of studies. I went on to link an article by medical doctors and cancer experts (on cancer.gov) who explain how this works and also explicitly state that it's not being researched due to lack of financial incentive.

I can't stop you from refusing to read sources - but you should know that you're totally wrong here. I can, and have in this thread, cited multiple high quality sources.

Not read the Vitamin C literature but there is an obvious contradiction in what you say.

ie how can you have sometime which is both obviously beneficial - backed up by dozens of studies and yet complain about lack of research - if it's so clear then why do we need more research?

I also suspect doctors don't require FDA etc approval if they wanted to prescribe vitamen C - so what's stopping them? Lack of research? But I thought you knew?

Having said all that it is beyond all doubt true that commercial organisations can't afford to spend money on researching drugs with no prospect of return - however I wouldn't characterise that as evil big pharma blocking something - it's simply just that's it's not their role.

That role belongs to organisations either funded directly by the public ( charities ) or indirectly ( taxes ) for the greater good.

>> If there is an overlooked treatment then they’ll communicate it to their doctor

Hah sure.

Try this and tell me how the egomanical "gods in white" react.

Go through some stuff the RFK says about vaccines etc... and you'll see that in real life it's the opposite.

I’m not saying all doctors are perfect or even good, but surely there would be at least some occasions where a patient tries this supposedly very effective treatment, gets better, and the doctor is left curious.

The only thing you should take away from the stuff RFK says about vaccines is that RFK is a complete kook.

Very wrong on all 3. It's an extremely naive world view.

What do you think is correct instead?

> - Doctors want the best outcomes for their patients. They’ll use whatever treatment is most effective.

They will often do what make them the most money. Also remember that is doctor is subject to rules and regulations. He risks loosing his license if he does not toe the line. Your average medical student is about half a million dollars in debt when he/she graduates.

> - Doctors want the best outcomes for themselves. If they’ve found an effective treatment that others are overlooking then they’ll seek to publish.

Doctors do want the best outcomes for themselves, but if you manged to become a doctor, it means that you have never learned to question authority. Many doctors believe that what they are taught is Gospel. A doctor or a medical student who questions authority, will either not make it through medical college, or will have a license revoked.

>- Patients want the best outcomes for themselves. If there is an overlooked treatment then they’ll communicate it to their doctor.

A patient is generally ridiculed, or ignored by the doctor if he suggests something that he thinks is better.

It goes without saying that there are exceptions both among doctors and patients.

Either you are not from the USA, are trolling, or don't really know the U.S. medical system. Yes, maybe a few private practice doctors are greedy, but generally, doctors "in the system" don't personally generate more funds by doing things different, prescribing more drugs, etc. They are on salary. As far as other types of doctors (eg. chiropractors), they DEFINITELY drive home more money by prescribing more, requiring return visits, etc. But I call them doctors only by the loosest of definitions.

I am baffled by your second paragraph. It is just plainly illogical.

The third paragraph tells me that you ARE possibly from outside the USA, or that you have only seen a few doctors and they were proud or rude. We (personally) have seen private doctors, hospital doctors, country doctors, etc. over 50 years (at least 50-60 different ones). And the preponderance of our evidence shows you are either misinformed, or you are a patient who wants to self prescribe treatments that are medically unsound or 'fringe'. And, yes, those WILL be ignored by any average doctor. But then you could always fly to Mexico and get those useless treatments for low cost...

All I will say is this: We have different assessments of the situation. And yes I do live in US.

Some of what you point out is correct: Most doctors are on salary, but they are often (implicitly) required to bring in more business by the organization they work for. If they don't, they risk loosing their license/job on some pretext. In totality what I said overall hold true. These are statements from the renegade doctors themselves. Of course you are going to dismiss them as fringe, quacks etc.

Labeling someone is a fringe and easy way to dismiss them, it does not involve any work. What time have you spend listening to these fringe MDs? What time have you spent examining their patient outcomes/reports? Any yes, it goes without saying one has to be discerning even among the fringe MDs.

Please explain to us all why glory and survival aren't more effective motivators than the money to be made from patenting something.

Things simply don't work that way. It cannot be explained, it has to be experienced.

I was speaking from experience.

No, not your personal experience, but the experiences of the others. For example look up Linus Pauling's writings on the subject, and the writings of his detractors. Spend atleast 50 hours on it.

Also see my post on the same thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42266462